HitsRus;1071709 wrote:Newt focused squarely on Obama. I didn't find that nauseating at all.

Ghmothwdwhso;1071762 wrote:When you're a flaming liberal, that will happen.....................

Do not fucking pretend you're a conservative if you like Newt Gingrich. He is not a conservative.

The nauseating part was the whole "war on religion" bullshit. Religion is who has been waging a war since well, forever, on anyone who didn't agree. And not just silly "you took a banner out of our school" so called wars. But like, shoot people dead, wars.

stlouiedipalma;1071777 wrote:I suppose he could, but they aren't running, are they? Actually a Clinton endorsement would be fairly ironic, as Newt led the impeachment fight against Slick Willie while he was playing hide the weiner with that blondie who appears on the stage with him all the time. I've always wondered what must have gone through her mind (besides air) when she was willing to be the kept woman in Newt's open marriage proposal. I wonder if Newt will ever let her speak out on the campaign trail.

believer was intentionally mentioning other people who cheated on their wives. One of whom also cheated on his cancerous wife.

I Wear Pants;1071794 wrote:believer was intentionally mentioning other people who cheated on their wives. One of whom also cheated on his cancerous wife.

His wife was as cancerous as cigarettes.

sjmvsfscs08;1071677 wrote:Iowa: Rick Santorum
New Hampshire: Mitt Romney
South Carolina: Newt Gingrich
Florida: Mitt Romney



February primaries/caucuses...

Nevada: Romney
Maine: Romney
Colorado: ??
Minnesota: ??
Arizona: ??
Michigan: Romney

Unless Romney screws up somehow, here's how I see it:

Nevada: Romney (The Mormons tend to hang in Utah but Nevada is close enough.)
Maine: Romney (East Coast)
Colorado: Romney (Denver)
Minnesota: Romney (Minnesota...The Midwest's leftist capital.)
Arizona: Gingrich (There's the border thingy going on.)
Michigan: Romney (Could be a toss-up. The unions might lean to Newt since Romney is more electable.)

dtdtim;1071720 wrote:Minnesota's electoral votes last went to a Republican in 1972, when the Democrat won 1 state.

Of the three...Nevada is by far the most likely for Romney, followed by Michigan. There are 20 other states that I would put in the 'maybe Romney' category before Minnesota. They're no DC but they're definitely not a Utah.

What if Tim Pawlenty is the VP?

believer;1071826 wrote:Unless Romney screws up somehow, here's how I see it:

Nevada: Romney (The Mormons tend to hang in Utah but Nevada is close enough.)
Maine: Romney (East Coast)
Colorado: Romney (Denver)
Minnesota: Romney (Minnesota...The Midwest's leftist capital.)
Arizona: Gingrich (There's the border thingy going on.)
Michigan: Romney (Could be a toss-up. The unions might lean to Newt since Romney is more electable.)

Basically my thoughts, I could see Romney sweeping the states doing into Super Tuesday.

Romney errrr Obama white will be the nominee. It has been spoken it shall be done.

No change more socialized medicine. I am getting depressed with the stupidity of Americans especially so-called conservatives (who really are not)

Too bad Barry Goldwater is still not around. That was a true conservative and American hero.

Zombaypirate;1071841 wrote:Romney errrr Obama white will be the nominee. It has been spoken it shall be done.

No change more socialized medicine. I am getting depressed with the stupidity of Americans especially so-called conservatives (who really are not)

Too bad Barry Goldwater is still not around. That was a true conservative and American hero.

I honestly think the RINOs/establishment/beltway Republicans got together after the 2010 congressional elections and said, "We gotta get this Tea Party thing under control or it'll mess up our shot for the presidency in 2012". Then they found the perfect guy, good-looking, moderate, tons of money, and then influential people who should know better are lining up behind him because they want to be on the winning side.

Romney's campaign tactics, along with his refusal to admit any wrongdoing with regards to Romneycare, should be nauseating to conservatives. And yet many who call themselves conservatives are carrying water for him.

Zombaypirate;1071841 wrote:Romney errrr Obama white will be the nominee. It has been spoken it shall be done.

No change more socialized medicine. I am getting depressed with the stupidity of Americans especially so-called conservatives (who really are not)

Too bad Barry Goldwater is still not around. That was a true conservative and American hero.

If you believe that Romney = Obama, then you're a moron.

jhay78;1072173 wrote:I honestly think the RINOs/establishment/beltway Republicans got together after the 2010 congressional elections and said, "We gotta get this Tea Party thing under control or it'll mess up our shot for the presidency in 2012". Then they found the perfect guy, good-looking, moderate, tons of money, and then influential people who should know better are lining up behind him because they want to be on the winning side.

Romney's campaign tactics, along with his refusal to admit any wrongdoing with regards to Romneycare, should be nauseating to conservatives. And yet many who call themselves conservatives are carrying water for him.

Yeah, they "found him," because he wasn't there in 2008.

All of you are looking way too far into his term as being a Republican governor of the most liberal state and making ludicrous assumptions and generalizations (like this Romney = Obama, and more specifically Obamacare = Romneycare horseshit) as a result. If nothing else, he's proven to be a populist and the rage in this country against the debt and Obamacare alone will force him to act like a fiscal conservative.

And you're all acting like Newt is hands down the better guy, or more conservative. That is a joke. He is a Bush-style republican...the liberals have their stupid programs and the GOP will have theirs. He's gone around promising the pie-in-the-sky crap just like Obama, only he throws "Reagan Reagan Reagan" after it. Reagan wouldn't be what this country needs right now. This country needs a guy who spent decades as a venture capitalist shaping companies to perform on the global market, and who has been a governor (i.e. training wheels), and who ultimately has an eye for efficiency and the desire to bring it to the federal government!

believer;1071826 wrote:Unless Romney screws up somehow, here's how I see it:

Nevada: Romney (The Mormons tend to hang in Utah but Nevada is close enough.)
Maine: Romney (East Coast)
Colorado: Romney (Denver)
Minnesota: Romney (Minnesota...The Midwest's leftist capital.)
Arizona: Gingrich (There's the border thingy going on.)
Michigan: Romney (Could be a toss-up. The unions might lean to Newt since Romney is more electable.)

It took him all of 7 hours from the time of your post to screw it up.

He will win the nomination, but Willard is toast after today's gaffe about not caring about poor people.

Conservative media is absolutely freaking out right now about how profoundly stupid this was, and they are stuck with him.

He is on pace to overtake John Kerry as the single most out of touch politician to seek the Presidency in the modern era if he keeps this up.

Willard wins these primary's because he carpet bombs his underfunded opponents into submission with negative ads (he has nothing to offer idea wise). He won't be able to do that to the dear leader, and that is his only campaign tactic.

The Obama ads against Willard will be just devastating, and it will be all Willard's own voice doing the talking.

The best Republicans can hope for is a brokered convention to escape from Willard, because he can't win this election.

IggyPride00;1072833 wrote:It took him all of 7 hours from the time of your post to screw it up.

He will win the nomination, but Willard is toast after today's gaffe about not caring about poor people.

Conservative media is absolutely freaking out right now about how profoundly stupid this was, and they are stuck with him.

He is on pace to overtake John Kerry as the single most out of touch politician to seek the Presidency in the modern era if he keeps this up.

Willard wins these primary's because he carpet bombs his underfunded opponents into submission with negative ads (he has nothing to offer idea wise). He won't be able to do that to the dear leader, and that is his only campaign tactic.

The Obama ads against Willard will be just devastating, and it will be all Willard's own voice doing the talking.

The best Republicans can hope for is a brokered convention to escape from Willard, because he can't win this election.

You don't think there are a million ads sitting by made my the GOP and CO with Obama's own words being used against him?

Obama's approval is at 45% and there hasn't been a single ad reminding people of the trillions in waste, Obamacare, and all of this shit:



I think you're all butthurt that Paul isn't going to be President. Get over it already.

sjmvsfscs08;1072681 wrote:Yeah, they "found him," because he wasn't there in 2008.

All of you are looking way too far into his term as being a Republican governor of the most liberal state and making ludicrous assumptions and generalizations (like this Romney = Obama, and more specifically Obamacare = Romneycare horse****) as a result. If nothing else, he's proven to be a populist and the rage in this country against the debt and Obamacare alone will force him to act like a fiscal conservative.

And you're all acting like Newt is hands down the better guy, or more conservative. That is a joke. He is a Bush-style republican...the liberals have their stupid programs and the GOP will have theirs. He's gone around promising the pie-in-the-sky crap just like Obama, only he throws "Reagan Reagan Reagan" after it. Reagan wouldn't be what this country needs right now. This country needs a guy who spent decades as a venture capitalist shaping companies to perform on the global market, and who has been a governor (i.e. training wheels), and who ultimately has an eye for efficiency and the desire to bring it to the federal government!

Although I believe Romney is not Obama and would therefore make a better president, and Romneycare is not Obamacare, the two are not different enough to satisfy me in the primary. Add to that his campaign tactics ("carpet bombing", which IggyPride addressed and you didn't), and it's understandable why conservatives don't get excited about him. I'm not excited by Newt by any stretch, but he at least has a history of leading and articulating a conservative movement, before the train came off the tracks and he spoke and behaved like a liberal.

jhay78;1072941 wrote:Although I believe Romney is not Obama and would therefore make a better president, and Romneycare is not Obamacare, the two are not different enough to satisfy me in the primary. Add to that his campaign tactics ("carpet bombing", which IggyPride addressed and you didn't), and it's understandable why conservatives don't get excited about him. I'm not excited by Newt by any stretch, but he at least has a history of leading and articulating a conservative movement, before the train came off the tracks and he spoke and behaved like a liberal.

Not different enough?

Person A was a mediocre student in political science at Columbia, studied political law at Harvard, was a local community organizer for a few years and while teaching political science, and then spent a few years running for elections and ended up riding the Change-wave into the White House. Person A spoke often before politics about his dream of changing the structure of America into a pseudo-Socialist mirror of Europe. Person A is a very smart man, and full of ideas--thus his Poli Scit baskground--but literally has produced zero results. Person A is the definition of an amatuer.

Person B was the son of an extremely successful governor, and graduated near the top of his class in Business Administration (and Business Law), founded and lead a multi-billion dollar venture capitalist firm which generated tens of thousands of jobs, managed the turnaround of the Olympic Games--from $380 million in debt to $100 million in profit. Then, he governed the most liberal state in America and dealt with an 85% democratic legislature and actually accomplished something...like going form $3 billion in debt to $1.3 billion in surplus over his last two years. Oh and he did all of the Olympics/Governor thing for free, just because he actually cares about people.

Tell me, average American, which guy do you want running the show? Which guy do you think has the knowledge to turn things around?

I guess I just want to know, as specifically as possible, what would Romney do as President that you are not okay with? Please don't give me the Ron Paul "eliminate ________." Give me something more, please. Is it that he isn't a social conservative, or is it that he is not a fiscal conservative (in your opinion)? I honestly want to know what people dislike about the idea of a Romney White House. I don't get it.

As for the "carpet bombing:" Newt is a bitch. Like he wouldn't do the same damn thing to Romney if he had the ability, he is the ruthless son of a bitch let's not pretend like he isn't. What really happened is that Romney called Newt out and Newt acted like a child and got exposed. I honestly liked Newt a lot in the summer and fall, and assumed he was the most knowledgable guy when it came to DC political maneuvers--and I guess I still believe that. But I don't want that. I don't want the Socialist who is driving this country off a cliff, I don't want the libertarian who won't get anything accomplished, I don't want the Reagan/Bush GOP stereotype who spent his enture career in the Beltway...I want the very skilled business leader who had succeeded in the global markets and has a trackrecord of bringing efficiency and profits to whatever he lays his hands on.

I'd rather have Ron Paul. That is who I will be voting for come November.

sjmvsfscs08;1073003 wrote:Not different enough?

Person A was a mediocre student in political science at Columbia, studied political law at Harvard, was a local community organizer for a few years and while teaching political science, and then spent a few years running for elections and ended up riding the Change-wave into the White House. Person A spoke often before politics about his dream of changing the structure of America into a pseudo-Socialist mirror of Europe. Person A is a very smart man, and full of ideas--thus his Poli Scit baskground--but literally has produced zero results. Person A is the definition of an amatuer.

Person B was the son of an extremely successful governor, and graduated near the top of his class in Business Administration (and Business Law), founded and lead a multi-billion dollar venture capitalist firm which generated tens of thousands of jobs, managed the turnaround of the Olympic Games--from $380 million in debt to $100 million in profit. Then, he governed the most liberal state in America and dealt with an 85% democratic legislature and actually accomplished something...like going form $3 billion in debt to $1.3 billion in surplus over his last two years. Oh and he did all of the Olympics/Governor thing for free, just because he actually cares about people.

Tell me, average American, which guy do you want running the show? Which guy do you think has the knowledge to turn things around?

I guess I just want to know, as specifically as possible, what would Romney do as President that you are not okay with? Please don't give me the Ron Paul "eliminate ________." Give me something more, please. Is it that he isn't a social conservative, or is it that he is not a fiscal conservative (in your opinion)? I honestly want to know what people dislike about the idea of a Romney White House. I don't get it.

As for the "carpet bombing:" Newt is a bitch. Like he wouldn't do the same damn thing to Romney if he had the ability, he is the ruthless son of a bitch let's not pretend like he isn't. What really happened is that Romney called Newt out and Newt acted like a child and got exposed. I honestly liked Newt a lot in the summer and fall, and assumed he was the most knowledgable guy when it came to DC political maneuvers--and I guess I still believe that. But I don't want that. I don't want the Socialist who is driving this country off a cliff, I don't want the libertarian who won't get anything accomplished, I don't want the Reagan/Bush GOP stereotype who spent his enture career in the Beltway...I want the very skilled business leader who had succeeded in the global markets and has a trackrecord of bringing efficiency and profits to whatever he lays his hands on.

What makes you think Ron Paul won't get anything accomplished?

sleeper;1073005 wrote:I'd rather have Ron Paul. That is who I will be voting for come November.

Typical sleeper.

I Wear Pants;1073008 wrote:What makes you think Ron Paul won't get anything accomplished?

So what makes you think Romney would get anything accomplished then?

"He has business experience" doesn't explain away that picture.

No but that's why his public experience (and really his mixture of both) is so important, and that he worked with an 85% Democrat state legislature. He has had the training wheels, and a more rigorous test than being the governor of Texas, in my opinion. Romney has seen the problems inherent in the system from both sides, as the chief executive of Bain Capital and of the State of Massachusetts. He cut right through the beauraucracy with the Olympics, that has to impress some people.

Romney's business attitude + ability to reach across the aisle + GOP (hopefully) controlling House and Senate = good things.

Romney doesn't strong-arm people, he just gets shit done. As I've said before, if Romney doesn't get it done I will be throwing all of my support towards Rand Paul in the next cycle simply because I believe Romney is the best (well, maybe after Chris Christie) conventional candidate and if he can't do it no one can. I'm willing to give a good man with a shit ton of success at least a chance and my full support, I think that is fair to ask.

"He is on pace to overtake John Kerry as the single most out of touch politician to seek the Presidency in the modern era if he keeps this up. "

As opposed to what we have in office? Do you realize how much people hate Obama's administration? He isn't sniffing winning North Carolina or Virginia again. Ohio is likely to go GOP and Pennsylvania and Michigan are at play. Obama will win California/New York, but I don't know anyone that will admit to voting for him. This is Jimmy Carter part deux.

sleeper;1073005 wrote:I'd rather have Ron Paul. That is who I will be voting for come November.

Dust in the wind.

Manhattan Buckeye;1073019 wrote:Do you realize how much people hate Obama's administration? He isn't sniffing winning North Carolina or Virginia again. Ohio is likely to go GOP and Pennsylvania and Michigan are at play. Obama will win California/New York, but I don't know anyone that will admit to voting for him. This is Jimmy Carter part deux.

Ohio will go with the final GOP candidate for sure and after living in Pennsylvania for 9 years, I can say for a fact that the "heartland" of the Keystone State loathes Obama as much as Ohio. The only way Pennsylvania goes with the Appointed One is if the Dems bus dead people and illegal immigrants to the polling places in Philadelphia.

IggyPride00;1072833 wrote:It took him all of 7 hours from the time of your post to screw it up.

He will win the nomination, but Willard is toast after today's gaffe about not caring about poor people.

Conservative media is absolutely freaking out right now about how profoundly stupid this was, and they are stuck with him.

He is on pace to overtake John Kerry as the single most out of touch politician to seek the Presidency in the modern era if he keeps this up.

Willard wins these primary's because he carpet bombs his underfunded opponents into submission with negative ads (he has nothing to offer idea wise). He won't be able to do that to the dear leader, and that is his only campaign tactic.

The Obama ads against Willard will be just devastating, and it will be all Willard's own voice doing the talking.

The best Republicans can hope for is a brokered convention to escape from Willard, because he can't win this election.

It was a colossal fuckup, but the election is still 10 months away. Had he done this in September, he'd be toast, I agree. Ten months out, not so much. People's attention span isn't that long.

Obama's approval rating averages 42% in the 13 swing states, and Willard is leading in 11 of them. Bam will still be a tough out, but to say Willard is "toast" at this stage is fairly short-sighted.

I heard somewhere that Rachel Maddow said Newt's comments that he wasn't running for entertainer in chief are racist. Granted Newt giving Barry crap for singing is a little much but to say it's racist is very overboard. You can't make this stuff up. Ha

Rachel Maddow needs to get hit in the head with a large blunt object.

sjmvsfscs08;1073003 wrote:Not different enough?

Person A was a mediocre student in political science at Columbia, studied political law at Harvard, was a local community organizer for a few years and while teaching political science, and then spent a few years running for elections and ended up riding the Change-wave into the White House. Person A spoke often before politics about his dream of changing the structure of America into a pseudo-Socialist mirror of Europe. Person A is a very smart man, and full of ideas--thus his Poli Scit baskground--but literally has produced zero results. Person A is the definition of an amatuer.

Person B was the son of an extremely successful governor, and graduated near the top of his class in Business Administration (and Business Law), founded and lead a multi-billion dollar venture capitalist firm which generated tens of thousands of jobs, managed the turnaround of the Olympic Games--from $380 million in debt to $100 million in profit. Then, he governed the most liberal state in America and dealt with an 85% democratic legislature and actually accomplished something...like going form $3 billion in debt to $1.3 billion in surplus over his last two years. Oh and he did all of the Olympics/Governor thing for free, just because he actually cares about people.

If Romney spent millions of Florida campaign ads saying that ^^^ and not setting a record for negative ads, I would respect him a bit more. I agree that Newt's mixture of whining and arrogance is annoying. Both get credit for dragging the primary into the negative campaign ad gutter.